Obama DID campaign on fundamentally changing the relationship between government and its citizens and he won the election.
He said he would "spread the wealth around, its good for everybody." Then he won the election. It appears he is now doing his damnedest to fulfill that promise.
Remember, McCain was the Republican alternative to Obama. The question is: "What would McCain really be doing differently if he were president?"
We know what Bush did:
Trillions in loan guarantees to banks that put taxpayers on the hook
Would McCain have followed in Commandant Bush's footsteps? Maybe not. He remarkably said the economy is "fundamentally strong" on the day the government refused to intervene when Lehman Brothers collapsed. I think his policy would have been to continue to use taxpayer money to prop up failed banks and veto any Keynes like fiscal stimulus. On the other hand McCain said the government would "buy bad mortgages" to the tune of $300 Billion dollars. Remember?
Both parties have a history of subsidy and bailout for failed banks and even corporations.
The people knew about Obama's desire to "share the wealth". Republicans even made a big deal of attacking Obama on this very point in the campaign. He won anyway. The alternative to Obama "sharing the wealth" was a McCain administration buying up bad mortgages.
This is what really happened.Comment Posted By bsjones On 23.02.2009 @ 13:23
According to some recent polls, it seems the Republicans are already on the run.
Here's the poll (it's a pdf linked on the page):
Never fear. joe the plumber is here.Comment Posted By bsjones On 24.02.2009 @ 14:26
I watch Fox News. I watch Glen Beck. I saw this.
There are three more parts on the youtubes.
"But if the GOP were to descend to the Democrat’s level – scaring people by screaming..."Comment Posted By bsjones On 22.02.2009 @ 23:31
Anybody heard of TALF?
It's the new Wall Street give away. $200 Billion in non recourse loans for speculators who buy securitized debt from Wall Street Banks. The debt investors think is junk.
It's a can't lose for the speculators. As the NYT says, "the Obama administration hopes to jump-start the securitization markets by effectively subsidizing the profits of big private investment firms in the bond markets."
Great for speculators with deep pockets. Great for Wall Street. You and me, not so much.
Wow!! Government subsidies for Hedge Fund operators!! I can't wait!! Neither can Santelli!!
Read all about it here:
Enjoy the masters of the universe at work.Comment Posted By bsjones On 22.02.2009 @ 23:03
Just one thing, Rick.
Obama did not create the "savior economy". Even in our most recent history Bush and Paulson created the TARP and the auto bailout.
This is reality.
We should not pretend this is all Comrade Obama's doing.
Comrade Bush was there first doing his part.Comment Posted By bsjones On 22.02.2009 @ 13:08
funny man,Comment Posted By bsjones On 22.02.2009 @ 22:32
Thanks for the support.
Sara in Va,
Yeah, it's about financial pressure. Our standard of living has declined as a result of taking new jobs in a new town. As I read more about the proposed mortgage program it looks like I would not qualify without first committing fraud (i.e. lying) about where my primary residence is.
The part that frustrates me is my own bank. "Sorry not interested right now. Miss three payments and we will talk.", they say.
My proposed mortgage modification would have increased their monthly revenue stream, made them more money over the life of the loan, and cut my payment in half. My bank was not interested.
To paraphrase what Greenspan said recently: Capitalism only works when managers of financial institutions operate their businesses with enlightened self interest. Managers must actively monitor their firms capital and risk positions to maintain bank solvency.
From what I can tell the bank that holds my loan would rather see me default than modify the term (the length of repayment) of the loan in a way that would make them more money.
The real question is "Why?"
Maybe they have securitized my loan so they don't take the loss when I default.
Maybe they have found a way to profit by my default with billions in giveaways and trillions in guarantees from the "nanny state".
Maybe the insolvency of the bank IS IN THE ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST OF ITS FINANCIAL MANAGERS. After all, none of them have lost their jobs or lost their "performance" bonuses.
Sara, I do not want to turn this into a rant, but like you worry about the poor leaches bleeding our society dry with welfare fraud, I am worried about the masters of the universe that run it from commanding heights. I think they messed up and are continuing to do so. With no consequences for them.
As for Santelli, I think he is a magician. He wants us to look at the shiny ball so he can help his friends complete their tricks.
As for me, Ive already thought about my worst case scenario. The worst thing that can happen is I lose my house, my $40,000 down payment, and about $30,000 in equity. It's not pretty, but I have accepted it as a worst case scenario. One more thing, Wells Fargo will own another house it can't sell.Comment Posted By bsjones On 22.02.2009 @ 12:58
I'm always checking the responses in your blog to see what's new. I posted a response about dealing with the banks as I try to secure a refinance for my home. I posted it at about 8:10. The weird thing is, sometimes I see it in with the other responses and other times it's not there.
What do you think is happening?
I removed comment moderation but some comments still get caught as spam. Don't know why. Just relax - I'll get them up eventually.
ed.Comment Posted By bsjones On 22.02.2009 @ 02:49
The 80 year old man that put an end to stagflation in America can be heard here:
He is showing his age, but he speaks honestly and makes a few good points about our current financial calamity.
Rick, Where's my refi story?Comment Posted By bsjones On 21.02.2009 @ 23:46
Here's my story.
I bought by first home in 2003 for $165,000, using $40,000 as a down payment. I got a 15 year mortgage which would save me on interest because I could well afford the higher payments. I knew housing prices were inflating but my expectations were modest and realistic (or so I thought).
If my home fetched $165,000 when I sold it in 15 years I would be doing alright. The house would be paid off and I would have $165,000 in my pocket when I sold it. No appreciation. No speculation. No flipping. Just the equity I earned each year (minus inflation) and a roof over my head to call home. The American Dream. Heaps better than renting. Right?
In March of 2006 my wife lost her job due to a slowing local economy. She didn't miss a beat. Without passing go to file for unemployment benefits she took three part time jobs. No health insurance; these were part time jobs. No big deal, we both were covered under my plan. She had always rejected health benefits from her previous employer anyway.
She was looking for permanent full time work but couldn't find it. My wife started looking for work outside the state. We put our house on the market. We were ready to pull up stakes. Follow the jobs.
The house was on the market for a year when my wife finally found her job in a new state. She went out ahead of me to start work. I stayed behind (still working) to sell the house. Then, I lost my job.
Since we were not getting any offers on the house, I rented it and joined my wife.
New jobs in a new state for both of us. We are renting. The mortgage payment on our house seems a lot larger than before, so I contacted my bank and asked for a modification.
All I asked was for them to extend the loan term from 15 to 30 years. It would have cut my payments in half and the bank would have made more money on the deal in the long run. I thought it was a no brainer. Win Win.
They told me to call them back after I had missed three payments. What I heard was, "Go screw yourself!"
I called another bank to get a traditional refinance. After asking a few questions, they said they could not help because I was "underwater". Homes in my area had lost 40% of their value.
I had put 20% down and now 60% of each mortgage payment goes to principle but I'm "underwater".
I'm not perfect. My assumptions weren't perfect. Buying a house, just like everything else in life, is a risk. I might lose on this one.
I played by the rules. I was a conservative risk taker.
Right now my gut is telling me the system is set up for everyone but ordinary people like me.
So if the new mortgage plan allows me to refinance my underwater house, I'll do it.
I hope nobody around here feels like I'm cheating them.Comment Posted By bsjones On 21.02.2009 @ 20:10